Film scanner vs. regular scanner?
Dec 29, 2019 09:35:09 #
I have a Canon MG8120 printer/scanner which comes equipped with the ability to scan film. As far as quality of images goes, would this be ok to use? Or would a dedicated film scanner be better? I'm learning to develop B&W film so I'm not quite ready to scan yet. But I was just wondering if I should be looking for a film scanner, or if what I have is fine. Thanks!
Dec 29, 2019 09:47:55 #
Audrey, first off, fantastic on the film development part. I have no experience with the scanner you're using. That said, a dedicated film scanner will probably be a better route to take. I'd also suggest Silverfast for the software to drive the scanner.
--Bob
--Bob
aschweik wrote:
I have a Canon MG8120 printer/scanner which comes equipped with the ability to scan film. As far as quality of images goes, would this be ok to use? Or would a dedicated film scanner be better? I'm learning to develop B&W film so I'm not quite ready to scan yet. But I was just wondering if I should be looking for a film scanner, or if what I have is fine. Thanks!
Dec 29, 2019 10:23:57 #
If you can get a decent film scanner with good resolution scans go that way. I owned a photo lab for 27 years. Scanning the negative is always you better solution.
You might go to AAAImaging website. They buy lots of used equipment from closed down photo labs.
https://www.aaaimaging.com
You might go to AAAImaging website. They buy lots of used equipment from closed down photo labs.
https://www.aaaimaging.com
Dec 29, 2019 10:36:28 #
rmalarz wrote:
Audrey, first off, fantastic on the film development part. I have no experience with the scanner you're using. That said, a dedicated film scanner will probably be a better route to take. I'd also suggest Silverfast for the software to drive the scanner.
--Bob
--Bob
Thanks, Bob! I was trying to look online but there are so many opinions and I never know if they know what they're talking about. I trust yours so I appreciate the advice. I'll look into Silverfast, also. Thanks, again!
Dec 29, 2019 10:39:19 #
coolhanduke wrote:
If you can get a decent film scanner with good resolution scans go that way. I owned a photo lab for 27 years. Scanning the negative is always you better solution.
You might go to AAAImaging website. They buy lots of used equipment from closed down photo labs.
https://www.aaaimaging.com
You might go to AAAImaging website. They buy lots of used equipment from closed down photo labs.
https://www.aaaimaging.com
Great advice, coolhanduke! I'll check out that website. I expect my photos won't be that great to start with but after I get used to film and developing, I'll want a good way to scan them. Thank you!
Dec 29, 2019 12:15:39 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Hi,
Frankly, there are "good", "mediocre" and "poor" quality flat bed scanners.... And there are also good, mediocre and poor quality dedicated film scanners.
You can spend <$100 to $1000> on a flat bed.... basically getting what you pay for.
Likewise you can spend <$100 on a "junk" dedicated film scanner... or $10,000> on one like pro labs use.
I can't find very detailed specifications on the all-in-one (scanner, printer, fax) you've got. But, generally speaking the scanner portion of those do a fairly modest job. From a good 35mm color negative or slide, you will probably be able to make a scan good enough to make a 4x6" or 5x7" print. Likely you will need to retouch the image quite a bit, for dust, scratches, etc. Anything on the slide or neg will be magnified.
When used for 35mm and smaller film formats, flat bed scanners are not as good as quality, dedicated film scanners. With flat bed scanners there is always a layer of glass between the lens and the image. That's like taking photographs through a window. Flatbeds are designed to copy documents with little magnification.... 1:1 most commonly. A dedicated film scanner directly images the film itself and is designed for high magnification. The MG8120 specs cite 4X magnification of documents. In comparison, an 8x10 made from 35mm film is approx. 8X enlargement... and 11x14" print is around 11X. Dedicated film scanners use one or more high quality macro lenses. It's unlikely the lens quality of a flatbed is anywhere near as good.
I couldn't find any information about the dynamic range of your scanner. Most flat bed and all-in-ones are pretty low.... have a D-Max below 3. The most ideal is 4 and most dedicated film scanners are in the 3.5 and higher range. Dynamic range of the scanner effects how much highlight and shadow detail will be captured from images.
Your MG8120 specs claim 4800 x 9600 ppi and 48-bit color depth, both of which are good.
Flat bed scanners can work pretty well with medium format and large format film, where far less magnification is required.
But you are also likely to see some problems trying to scan silver halide B&W film. The reason for this is because of how that film... the type that you can pretty easily develop yourself at home... works and is constructed. Light sensitive silver halide is suspended in an emulsion on a film transparent base. The more light that the silver halide is exposed to, the more and larger silver crystals form to block light. The development process sort of "locks" th ose silver crystals in place, where they will serve to block light passing through the film, creating the image. As a result, the negative is created. Later when you make a traditional enlargement from a negative you project a strong light through the film onto paper that has a similar silver halide emulsion, on a white paper base.
But when you scan the film instead, light is transmitted through it without that enlargement and it's essentially highly magnified.... The result is a "contrasty" looking scan, where the two extremes of highlights and shadows lose detail due to the way the light is either blocked or allowed to pass through the neg. This makes the images look "clipped"... as if you used a "high key" method shooting the image and then printed it on extremely high contrast paper. Less like a photo and more like a line drawing or illustration. Magnifying that's inherent in the film scanning process also greatly amplifies the appearance of grain in the neg.
On the other hand, instead of using silver halide crystals to form the image, color negative, slide films (transparency) and chromogenic B&W film all use dyes. Those don't "block" light... they allow some to pass in all areas of the image, in a more linear manner that makes for a much better scan. Better highlight and shadow detail... or less "clipping" at those extremes.
B&W chromogenic negs tend to look somewhat flat and low contrast when printed traditionally, but thanks to the dyes used will scan much better than silver-based B&W negs.
Problems are...
1. There isn't a lot of choice of chromogenic B&W film. Last time I looked, only Ilford XP2 was still being made in 35mm and medium size formats.
2. Chromogenic B&W film isn't practical to develop at home. It's developed using the C41 process, the same as color neg film. The same process most 1-hour labs have used for many years. While this is still fairly widely available, it's not anywhere near as common as it was in the past and the process involves a lot of chemistry and temperature controls that are well beyond the capabilities of most home darkrooms.
In fact, I think you should go ahead and use what you've got, do the best you can with it and see if it meets your purposes. I'm really not trying to discourage you from trying it. Just letting you know that there are likely to be some "issues", why they occur, and what you may or may not be able to do about them.
I've scanned images for 20+ years.... Not much lately, since I mostly just shoot digital now. But most of my scanning was 35mm color transparencies, some color negs and a few 35mm B&W chromogenic... with a dedicated Nikon film scanner. One of the reasons I chose that particular film scanner was an accessory available for it that allows me to load up as many as 40 mounted 35mm slides and let it run overnight. It also can be set to scan all the images on cut 35mm film strips or even an entire uncut roll of film.
I have far fewer of them, so medium and large format film I scanned with a flatbed or had professionally scanned rather than invest in a super high priced dedicate film scanner capable of handling larger sizes of film.
I no longer have it, but I used an Epson V-series flat bed. I forget which models.... The current Epson V800 and V850 are their top-of-the-line. The previous V700 and V750 are similar, but not as fast. The V600 is okay, but has much less dynamic range. The V550 is their most budget version, rather marginal even for medium format film scans.
With the dedicated film scanner I had little trouble making high quality 8x10" and 11x14" prints from slides and color negs.
With the flat bed and medium format film I was able to make high quality 11x14" prints, too.
My flat bed also served to scan B&W prints. This is the best way to digitize a silver-halide B&W neg image. First make a high quality, traditional, chemical darkroom enlargement from it, then scan that on a flat bed. I tried scanning B&W negs directly, but the results weren't up to my expectations. Scanning an enlargement instead was much better... But, of course, handling B&W images this way requires a darkroom complete with enlarger, etc.
I sold off my old flat bed, after I finished scanning the relatively few B&W prints and medium/large format film with the flat bed, . It also took up a lot of space, which I don't have to spare right no
Regarding software...
Silverfast is excellent scanning software. HOWEVER, it is scanner-specific and they don't make a version for Canon MG8120 that I can find. This is another problem with scanners of this type. The better software doesn't support them. The Canon scanners that Silverfast supports are all flat beds (not all-in-ones): 5600F, 8600F, 8800F, 9000F, 9000F Mark II, 9900F, 9950F, FS4000US. Even if you had one of those Canon scanners that can use it, Silverfast SE 8.8 and SE 8.8 Plus are the more affordable and less advanced form of Silverfast scanning software, selling for around $40 and $90 respectively. That's fairly basic software, probably not a great deal better than what came with your printer/scanner. The really "good" and advanced Silverfast AI Studio and AI Studio SE start at $225 and can cost well over $1000 a copy with some of the extensions. But this is all a moot point, since Silverfast doesn't support your particular scanner (or any other "all-in-one" I'm aware of). They do make versions for Epson V-series scanners (as well as for my dedicated Nikon) https://www.silverfast.com/
If needed, a more practical "generic" software that works with most scanners is Hamrick "Vuescan"... It sells in standard and pro versions for $50 and $100, respectively. I don't know if this is "better" than what Canon provided with your scanner. I have Vuescan installed now, for occasional use with my Nikon film scanner. It works pretty well. https://www.hamrick.com/
Again, try to use what you've got... But be aware of the possible alternatives, if you feel they might be needed.
Below are a few images I scanned and happen to have online for reference... all from 35mm film w/dedicated scanner... which have been printed 8x10 and 11x14:
Frankly, there are "good", "mediocre" and "poor" quality flat bed scanners.... And there are also good, mediocre and poor quality dedicated film scanners.
You can spend <$100 to $1000> on a flat bed.... basically getting what you pay for.
Likewise you can spend <$100 on a "junk" dedicated film scanner... or $10,000> on one like pro labs use.
I can't find very detailed specifications on the all-in-one (scanner, printer, fax) you've got. But, generally speaking the scanner portion of those do a fairly modest job. From a good 35mm color negative or slide, you will probably be able to make a scan good enough to make a 4x6" or 5x7" print. Likely you will need to retouch the image quite a bit, for dust, scratches, etc. Anything on the slide or neg will be magnified.
When used for 35mm and smaller film formats, flat bed scanners are not as good as quality, dedicated film scanners. With flat bed scanners there is always a layer of glass between the lens and the image. That's like taking photographs through a window. Flatbeds are designed to copy documents with little magnification.... 1:1 most commonly. A dedicated film scanner directly images the film itself and is designed for high magnification. The MG8120 specs cite 4X magnification of documents. In comparison, an 8x10 made from 35mm film is approx. 8X enlargement... and 11x14" print is around 11X. Dedicated film scanners use one or more high quality macro lenses. It's unlikely the lens quality of a flatbed is anywhere near as good.
I couldn't find any information about the dynamic range of your scanner. Most flat bed and all-in-ones are pretty low.... have a D-Max below 3. The most ideal is 4 and most dedicated film scanners are in the 3.5 and higher range. Dynamic range of the scanner effects how much highlight and shadow detail will be captured from images.
Your MG8120 specs claim 4800 x 9600 ppi and 48-bit color depth, both of which are good.
Flat bed scanners can work pretty well with medium format and large format film, where far less magnification is required.
But you are also likely to see some problems trying to scan silver halide B&W film. The reason for this is because of how that film... the type that you can pretty easily develop yourself at home... works and is constructed. Light sensitive silver halide is suspended in an emulsion on a film transparent base. The more light that the silver halide is exposed to, the more and larger silver crystals form to block light. The development process sort of "locks" th ose silver crystals in place, where they will serve to block light passing through the film, creating the image. As a result, the negative is created. Later when you make a traditional enlargement from a negative you project a strong light through the film onto paper that has a similar silver halide emulsion, on a white paper base.
But when you scan the film instead, light is transmitted through it without that enlargement and it's essentially highly magnified.... The result is a "contrasty" looking scan, where the two extremes of highlights and shadows lose detail due to the way the light is either blocked or allowed to pass through the neg. This makes the images look "clipped"... as if you used a "high key" method shooting the image and then printed it on extremely high contrast paper. Less like a photo and more like a line drawing or illustration. Magnifying that's inherent in the film scanning process also greatly amplifies the appearance of grain in the neg.
On the other hand, instead of using silver halide crystals to form the image, color negative, slide films (transparency) and chromogenic B&W film all use dyes. Those don't "block" light... they allow some to pass in all areas of the image, in a more linear manner that makes for a much better scan. Better highlight and shadow detail... or less "clipping" at those extremes.
B&W chromogenic negs tend to look somewhat flat and low contrast when printed traditionally, but thanks to the dyes used will scan much better than silver-based B&W negs.
Problems are...
1. There isn't a lot of choice of chromogenic B&W film. Last time I looked, only Ilford XP2 was still being made in 35mm and medium size formats.
2. Chromogenic B&W film isn't practical to develop at home. It's developed using the C41 process, the same as color neg film. The same process most 1-hour labs have used for many years. While this is still fairly widely available, it's not anywhere near as common as it was in the past and the process involves a lot of chemistry and temperature controls that are well beyond the capabilities of most home darkrooms.
In fact, I think you should go ahead and use what you've got, do the best you can with it and see if it meets your purposes. I'm really not trying to discourage you from trying it. Just letting you know that there are likely to be some "issues", why they occur, and what you may or may not be able to do about them.
I've scanned images for 20+ years.... Not much lately, since I mostly just shoot digital now. But most of my scanning was 35mm color transparencies, some color negs and a few 35mm B&W chromogenic... with a dedicated Nikon film scanner. One of the reasons I chose that particular film scanner was an accessory available for it that allows me to load up as many as 40 mounted 35mm slides and let it run overnight. It also can be set to scan all the images on cut 35mm film strips or even an entire uncut roll of film.
I have far fewer of them, so medium and large format film I scanned with a flatbed or had professionally scanned rather than invest in a super high priced dedicate film scanner capable of handling larger sizes of film.
I no longer have it, but I used an Epson V-series flat bed. I forget which models.... The current Epson V800 and V850 are their top-of-the-line. The previous V700 and V750 are similar, but not as fast. The V600 is okay, but has much less dynamic range. The V550 is their most budget version, rather marginal even for medium format film scans.
With the dedicated film scanner I had little trouble making high quality 8x10" and 11x14" prints from slides and color negs.
With the flat bed and medium format film I was able to make high quality 11x14" prints, too.
My flat bed also served to scan B&W prints. This is the best way to digitize a silver-halide B&W neg image. First make a high quality, traditional, chemical darkroom enlargement from it, then scan that on a flat bed. I tried scanning B&W negs directly, but the results weren't up to my expectations. Scanning an enlargement instead was much better... But, of course, handling B&W images this way requires a darkroom complete with enlarger, etc.
I sold off my old flat bed, after I finished scanning the relatively few B&W prints and medium/large format film with the flat bed, . It also took up a lot of space, which I don't have to spare right no
Regarding software...
Silverfast is excellent scanning software. HOWEVER, it is scanner-specific and they don't make a version for Canon MG8120 that I can find. This is another problem with scanners of this type. The better software doesn't support them. The Canon scanners that Silverfast supports are all flat beds (not all-in-ones): 5600F, 8600F, 8800F, 9000F, 9000F Mark II, 9900F, 9950F, FS4000US. Even if you had one of those Canon scanners that can use it, Silverfast SE 8.8 and SE 8.8 Plus are the more affordable and less advanced form of Silverfast scanning software, selling for around $40 and $90 respectively. That's fairly basic software, probably not a great deal better than what came with your printer/scanner. The really "good" and advanced Silverfast AI Studio and AI Studio SE start at $225 and can cost well over $1000 a copy with some of the extensions. But this is all a moot point, since Silverfast doesn't support your particular scanner (or any other "all-in-one" I'm aware of). They do make versions for Epson V-series scanners (as well as for my dedicated Nikon) https://www.silverfast.com/
If needed, a more practical "generic" software that works with most scanners is Hamrick "Vuescan"... It sells in standard and pro versions for $50 and $100, respectively. I don't know if this is "better" than what Canon provided with your scanner. I have Vuescan installed now, for occasional use with my Nikon film scanner. It works pretty well. https://www.hamrick.com/
Again, try to use what you've got... But be aware of the possible alternatives, if you feel they might be needed.
Below are a few images I scanned and happen to have online for reference... all from 35mm film w/dedicated scanner... which have been printed 8x10 and 11x14:
Dec 29, 2019 12:36:33 #
I got sucked down this rabbit hole somewhere between 10 and 15 years ago, much to my regret. I got what was the top of the line Epson flatbed and even got a set of custom made film holders for it. Results ere, well, disappointing. Then I got lucky and got a Minolta 35mm film scanner. It produced fantastic results, as scanning film was it's only ability, and had nothing to fall back on. I replaced it with a Minolta that would scan 35mm and 120, and modified a holder to handle negs from my xPan. I produced fine results until it too shot craps. But understand in today's world, it will take about $25,000 to get one brand new. You can get a lot of scans from a scanning service for that.
What I learned was to not buy something yhat dos something and expect it to do something else
What I learned was to not buy something yhat dos something and expect it to do something else
Dec 29, 2019 15:50:06 #
amfoto1 wrote:
Hi, br br Frankly, there are "good", &q... (show quote)
Thank you so much for your time and information! I was looking at the Epson V-series and that could be the route I go. I just developed my first roll of film a few hours ago and so far I don't think I screwed it up but I won't really know until I scan it. I think I'll be using my existing scanner for now since the film I have is all just practice and if I mess it up, it's ok. When I know I have everything right, I'll invest in the film scanner. I appreciate all the time you invested in answering my question. At this point I need all the info I can get! I'm sure I'll be referring back to your post many times. Thanks, again!!
Dec 29, 2019 16:54:47 #
Film scanners are better but since you start to develop B&W I don't think you need to buy one. Use what you have for at least a while until you get the hang on developing yet. Besides film scanners come in size and if you need the medium format they are very expensive.
Dec 30, 2019 00:59:17 #
therwol
Loc: USA
aschweik wrote:
I have a Canon MG8120 printer/scanner which comes equipped with the ability to scan film. As far as quality of images goes, would this be ok to use? Or would a dedicated film scanner be better? I'm learning to develop B&W film so I'm not quite ready to scan yet. But I was just wondering if I should be looking for a film scanner, or if what I have is fine. Thanks!
Scan some negatives and see if you're satisfied with the results. I have the same Canon printer/scanner. I would call it adequate. I just finished mass scanning over 8000 negatives and slides, and doing one strip at a time would have driven me nuts. I bought an Epson V800 for the job. BTW it is better as well. I photograph my important negatives with a camera and macro lens. A dedicated film scanner would also give better results than the Epson flatbed scanners, but they're pretty darn good.
Dec 30, 2019 08:09:11 #
Speaking only from experience and not being a professional, I find a dedicated slide scanner is much better than a flat bed. I have a Canon FS4000 that has been in use for quite a long time. It does excellent film/slide scans of 35mm only. I also own an Epson V700 Photo flat bed that is a workhorse scanner but just can't compare to the Canon when it comes to film or slides. I like the Canon so much that I picked up another one on eBay when I saw it for $100. It is in the same condition as my original and it was worth it just to get the spare slide and film mounts.
Dec 30, 2019 12:12:26 #
What I would like to have is an old drum scanner. If you find one grab it, but don't buy one without it's computer. Most used an early version of a mac with proprietary software.
Dec 30, 2019 15:00:46 #
aschweik wrote:
I have a Canon MG8120 printer/scanner which comes equipped with the ability to scan film. As far as quality of images goes, would this be ok to use? Or would a dedicated film scanner be better? I'm learning to develop B&W film so I'm not quite ready to scan yet. But I was just wondering if I should be looking for a film scanner, or if what I have is fine. Thanks!
Film scanners always provide better quality than flatbed/multipurpose scanners!
Dec 30, 2019 15:05:47 #
Dec 30, 2019 17:01:56 #
aschweik wrote:
I have a Canon MG8120 printer/scanner which comes equipped with the ability to scan film. As far as quality of images goes, would this be ok to use? Or would a dedicated film scanner be better? I'm learning to develop B&W film so I'm not quite ready to scan yet. But I was just wondering if I should be looking for a film scanner, or if what I have is fine. Thanks!
Many scanners do a good job with film. You need to test yours to see the results.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.